The feud

Two titans, bad blood, and a growing rift that threatens to divide the Conservative party

by Paul Wells on Tuesday, April 21, 2009 8:50pm - 62 Comments

Harper was a campus political geek at the University of Calgary when Mulroney won his historic first majority in 1984. For Harper, an Ontario-born former Liberal who had abandoned his old party out of disillusionment with Pierre Trudeau’s National Energy Program, Mulroney’s election must have seemed like a new dawn. He went to Ottawa to work for Calgary West MP Jim Hawkes. But Mulroney took almost two years to roll back the NEP. By then Harper had moved to Calgary, disgusted with the glad-handing and compromises of life in Mulroney’s Ottawa.

By 1987 Harper was at the founding convention of a new western protest movement, the Reform party. He became Preston Manning’s policy director and ran twice against Hawkes, finally beating him in 1993. The near-simultaneous rise of Reform and the Bloc Québécois illustrated the surprisingly rapid disintegration of the Mulroney coalition.

Even at that early stage Harper’s relationship to the older man was complex. Certainly he harboured no illusions about Mulroney’s popularity. “The man has a pettiness and a credibility problem that is so large that it’s tough for voters to support him even when he does things that may benefit their region or benefit them personally,” Harper told a reporter in 1991. “He really is an anathema.”

And yet Harper was reluctant to attack Mulroney personally in the political arena. With political scientist Tom Flanagan, Harper persuaded Manning to run against the constitutional amendments in the Charlottetown accord in 1992. But they also resisted when Manning wanted to label the accord the “Mulroney deal.” That was cheap, Harper and Flanagan argued. Better to argue on substance.

The same ability to coolly gauge Mulroney’s strengths and weaknesses came in handy when Harper became the leader of the Canadian Alliance in 2002. On May 28 of that year, he made his maiden speech as leader of the Opposition in the Commons. The occasion was a debate over an Alliance motion on lumber trade. More or less out of nowhere, Harper announced, “When it comes to United States-Canada relations, the government has much to learn from former prime minister Brian Mulroney . . . Under Mr. Mulroney, Canada-United States relations were infinitely better than they are now.” A Maclean’s reporter quizzed Harper afterward about the speech. “Frankly,” Harper said, “I’m making a political point.”

Seventeen months later Harper announced a deal with the new Progressive Conservative leader, Peter MacKay, to wind down their two parties as legal entities and launch a newly incorporated Conservative Party of Canada. Mulroney was a key behind-the-scenes player in cajoling Progressive Conservatives to sit down with the Alliance. But he was no great admirer of Harper. With former Ontario premier Mike Harris, Mulroney was a none-too-secret backer of millionaire car-parts heiress Belinda Stronach in the race to lead the new party.

Still, Conservatives handed Harper a first-ballot victory over Stronach and Tony Clement. It began to seem a wise choice. Harper made MacKay his deputy leader, wove members of both parties into an effective parliamentary caucus, and built a party office into which nobody was allowed to carry old grudges.

The figure of Brian Mulroney loomed large in Harper’s calculations in those early days of reconciliation. “At the very last Canadian Alliance caucus meeting,” one Harper minister recalls, “Stephen said, ‘We’re going to be building a party with people who revere Brian Mulroney. You need to forget everything you’ve been saying about him for years. And you need to know that right now, Peter MacKay is in their caucus room telling them the same thing about Preston Manning.’ ”

Bookmark and Share
  • http://macleans.ca joetheelectrician

    We need Don Cherry as the new Conservative leader .

    • Elizabeth Montgomery

      hahahaha . . . lol. He’d be perfect.

  • http://mentmore24@msn.com David

    I am intrigued by the many Liberal articles pointing out how Mr.Harper “kicks over a chair”. It might help their propaganda machine if they could get one of their numerous friends, journalists,media anchors, etc. to have a photograph of one of these alleged events. Every time I’ve seen our PM on TV he seems cool, detached and reasonable. Perhaps you were using the Dr.Jekyll and Mr. Hyde scenario.to bolster your quest to destroy Mr.Harper.

    • Derek Pearce

      There are numerous reports of Harper having a pretty bad temper behind closed doors. The same went for Paul Martin, and apparently John McCain. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hide is bang-on. This is all secondary to policy discussion of course– but we don’t need to see him kicking over the chair on YouTube to believe it’s damn true.

  • delford t. louis

    did someone mention ben mulroney? with all respect to success finding people… the guy is there doing whatever he does with plummeting ratings wherever he shows up… what did he do to earn this forced celebrity status? possibly taxpayer money?

  • Pingback: Behind closed doors at Passing Lad

  • dArt

    Mr. Harper is only doing what one would do in order not to have any of the fluff stick to him. Any politician would do that. I do feel great hope that Mr. Mulroney is found free of any guilt for I do not want that he has done wrong. I liked him as our Prime Minister.

  • keith c

    very funny article as usual that takes us into interesting inside baseball.
    HOWEVER.
    The thesis of your attack on Harper here really strikes me as a little silly, once all the interesting details are removed. As posters above me have stated:
    1) Mulroney took a wad of cash from a shady dude. proven fact. He denied it for years and it was revealed to be true in the end. As americanindian says, this is something that villains do in movies.
    2) the inquiry will probably tell us what happened after all these years. Do you really think Mulroney gets out of this one intact?
    3) and it’s somehow WEIRD or politically stupid that Harper wanted to sever ties with the guy? It should have been obvious this was going to happen.

    Harper’s choice was to keep Mulroney/Charest on side for, at most, 20 quebec seats or else be associated with a toxic brand in english canada. Easy choice in my books. Iggy may beat Harper by making him wear the recession, but he won’t be able to do it by referring to `Mulroney Sleaze’.
    he’s splitting his caucus yes but it’s not obvious to me that it’s the wrong thing to do long term – he can’t do worse than the 1993 Tory wipeout that Mulroney has never had the decency to take an ounce of responsibility for.

  • Critical Reasoning

    Great piece! The definitive account (so far) of the Mulroney-Harper feud. No doubt it has already been read by many senior Conservatives. Perhaps it even had an impact on Harper`s efforts today to mend fences during the caucus meeting.

  • Zamprelli

    This article made realclearworld.com. Congrats, Mr. Wells.

  • Paul Wells

    Yeah, that was fun. Helps our traffic too. Greetings, Mr. and Mrs. America!

  • DianeG

    Mulroney and Harper “two titans”

    C’mon now. There’s no way in which Haper resembles a titan.

    Conservative for life – gave me a giggle or two. The Conservatives surely have enough money to give Mulroney a free life-membership. But M. has been tagged as dirty so they won’t, or if they did, the probably retracted it.

    Some folk thought lyin’ Brian had charm. Too bad it’s not a saleable asset. anymore.

From Macleans